I come from a long line of lawyers on my father's side, and i have cousins on that side of generations below mine who are lawyers still. Just before COVID I lost a dear friend — Maurice Knuckey — barrister, intellectual, raconteur, bon vivant (= high-performing substance abuser, God bless 'im), contrarian and charmer, and I missed his wake beco's i was the wrong side of the equator at the time. I remember him complaining (not toooo vehemently) about a senior colleague from long ago who ``laughed too many cases out of court''.

But less of the patter, more of the text. It's worthy of Machiavelli: astute, free of malice and entirely merciless.

Now the thing easiest to be got in this world is the truth, if you set about it the right way; for to speak truth is to relate what has happened, while to lie is to tell what has not — and this requires the imagining of what never was, and the joining of it, more or less cleverly, to what is.

In nearly all men the imagination works but slowly; and therefore it is well to get yourself answered quickly when you desire facts to be disclosed, but to give time if you want the witness to palter with the truth for the purpose of showing afterwards that he did so.

If it be asked how one may get an answer quickly, I can only reply that a question suddenly put seems to hurry the utterance of the witness before it touches his faculty of reflection. Thus you may often hear a man, who has answered a question, say ``Excuse me, but I did not understand you''— an assertion which a smile of incredulity easily represents as a falsehood.

If you suggest to an adverse witness a fact in his own favour, he will often deny its existence for fear it should be to your own advantage.

A suggestion which you desire a hostile witness to adopt should always be made unexpectedly, otherwise his judgement will reject it at the bidding of his interest. There is a story told of Lord Erskine which may illustrate this position. ``Sir'' he said very slowly to a man who declined to pay for a coat, on the grounds that it did not fit him, ``do I understand you to say that one arm of that coat was longer than the other?'' ``I swear it most solemnly'' replied the witness. ``What?'' cried Erskine, with a sudden plunge into a hurried manner; ``do you pledge your oath that, on the contrary, one arm was actually shorter than the other?'' ``I do'' was the answer, given as rapidly as the question was put.

It is generally well to indulge a witness against you who desires to talk much; for, when you have with affability heard all that he has to say, he will readily tell you what you wish to hear. Moreover his garrulity will be likely to offend the jury, since they are all so fond of talking that they lavish much praise on silence in others, as poverty is lauded for a virtue because everyone wants to be rich.

In all men we first notice their weak points; and therefore you should, for a time, encourage the display of those characteristics of a witness which you soonest observe; yet remember always that , as there is no spot of earth where you would not find something of value, if you should dig deep enough, so will much stirring up of any man at last reveal some good quality.

It is most difficult for a wit to be agreeable; so, if you allure a witness into indulging his taste for comicality, you may be sure that he will offend at least one of a tribunal of thirteen.

A gruff man is commonly thought honest. You should, therefore, play to such a one on the pipe of politeness, that he may look ill-tempered if he will not dance, and ill-mannered if he do.

Should a witness be naturally cautious and circumspect, there is no resource but to give him large opportunities for reticence, that it may be taken for disingenuousness.

A timid question will always receive a confident answer.

When a witness called by the other side is inclined to behave to you with marked courtesy, I think it a mistake to discourage him, as some Counsel do. For, though the tenor of his evidence shall be against you, yet many will conclude, from his manner of giving it being the contrary, that he is addicted to insincerity, and will be likely to distrust him altogether.

It often happens that you have to cross-examine your own witness, by reason of the other side having called him. In such a case it is wisest to conceal as much as possible the fact of his partiality; and I would, therefore, not cross-examine him as though he were a trusted friend, as is the common way. It is well to ask him many questions; for he will be sure to answer favourably, and yet it looks more like a real cross-examination than if you should let him begin and finish his own story without interruption or with transparent assistance.

Never torture a witness longer than he will wriggle in a lively fashion; for it is not the pain, but the contortions of the victim which amuse lookers-on.

A compliment is a forensic anaesthetic. Many people will complacently undergo a fatal interrogation if they be well flattered all the while; and more men are likely to be caught by a compliment to their ability than by a tribute to their virtue. Perhaps even the best of us would rather be feared than respected or loved.

In cross-examining a claimant it is expedient to induce him to exaggerate his rights, to the end that all who hear him may feel their share in the wealth of mankind to be threatened by his large demands upon the common stock; and that thus his claims may be adjudged by his debtors.

To show that your client has, through the Defendant's conduct, lost something which he had before, will gain much favour for his suit; but to prove that he has been prevented from obtaining what he had a right to acquire will help him little; for who can tell from whose store the new supply would have been drawn?

It is almost always safe to attack a witness whom the judge allows to be hostile, and to punish him as sharply as you can; since the admission of an overt act of enmity is, after the oath, a declaration of his untruthfulness and desire to deceive the court. The jury at once feel that you are fighting, not your enemy only, but theirs also; and having, as it were, become combatants by champion, are anxious to see you prevail.

If you can make a witness appear ridiculous, it is never unsafe to do so; for those in ludicrous situations receive no pity, even though they die there.

Yet I think it generally a mistake to laugh at any man for his calling in life; as that he is a barber, a tailor or the like. Few men do not think themselves more genteel than their business; and it is ill joking before a jury on a common foible.

A severe manner may often be used with success toward a witness with whom the jury are inclined to agree, but never against one with whom they sympathise. And it is not wise to try to deprive a person of this sympathy; for you show the foolishness of those who bestowed it; but rather enlarge upon how much of sympathy any one has, as a reason for denying him anything more substantial,

The knowledge that virtue is its own reward is reason enough for giving to the deserving nothing besides an admission of their goodness.

Sometimes it is not inartistic to affect entire belief in every statement made by an opponent's witness; since nothing begets scepticism than the contemplation of credulity. We must indeed be very careful how we affect unbelief in statements made by even the falsest; for they themselves must speak infinitely more truth than falsehood, and every one can see it.

To prove that a man is a notorious liar has its dangers, since it heightens the effect of every truth he tells.

Do not seek to sink a witness too low in the opinion of his judges; for it is to be observed that we hardly ever feel unkindly towards those who are incontestably and hopelessly beneath us. An aspiring man is always disliked; but the greatest sinner will meet with toleration, if only he have art enough to be abject.

A display of magnaminity in dealing with the case against you often begets a belief in the strength of your own; for we are accustomed to generosity on the part only of those who have a superabundance for themselves.

Many counsel repeat every answer they obtain. A poor artifice for impressing a fact on a jury; because it is but telling them that they can comprehend only those things which have been said twice. And, although it is often neccessary that a jury should not understand your case, it can never be advisable to show them that you think they cannot.

I have frequently heard many foolish questions put for the purpose of showing that a witness takes gin in his beer. I am sure juries generally look on that as an honest failing; and I would suggest to counsel who cross-examine in this way, that they would damage a man far more by eliciting his entire exemption from any conventional weakness, or commonplace vices, than by proving that he is not above them.

Maurice told me of the time he represented a serial flasher in a magistrate's court. As it happens, the magistrate that tried him was female, and her primate curiosity finally overcame her (this was not the first time he had appeared before her, so to speak) and she asked the question we all want to ask:

``Why do you do it?''

and got the answer

``Co's i got a big 'un''.

Well! You ask questions, you get answers; you may not know what they mean but you get them anyway. Forty-two.

Return to Thomas Forster's home page